Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday December 05, 2009 @03:36AM
from the gauntlet-thrown dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Australia refused to give Rebellion's new Aliens Vs. Predator game a rating, effectively banning it in the country. Rebellion says it won't be submitting an edited version for another round of classifications, however. (As Valve did with Left 4 Dead 2.) They said, 'We will not be releasing a sanitized or cut down version for territories where adults are not considered by their governments to be able to make their own entertainment choices.'"

How do you refuse when they are backed with the full force of law? You can vote the Government out -- but that would require convincing the sheeple that free speech is worth more than "think of the children!" Good luck with that.

At least here in the US they don't have the power of the state behind them -- yet. Of course it's almost as stupid over here -- there's many games that should be rated 'AO' but such a rating means that most retailers won't stock it and the game isn't commercially viable. The en

You do something illegal. Very simple. Armed rebellion IS a legitimate choice.

I'm surprised to hear all of this "I want to change the government because it is poor and doesn't represent my interests.... but I won't do anything illegal". FUCKING PICK ONE. Either put up with the bullshit, or do something about it, don't sit there and bitch like a whiney fuck.

Access to knives, blunt instruments or chemicals that can be used to make explosives is easy and very hard to outlaw. A chef or a butcher owns a nice lethal arsenal as part of their job and even the knives in my kitchen could be used to injure or kill. Lack of guns or swords (which are very conspicuous by the way) hasn't stopped determined people before.

I honestly don't know how much money the guy makes. I met him in a terminal at JFK. Saw him wearing a Ruger shirt and asked him where he got it -- he told me he worked for them. Asked him what his role was and he said he was the CEO. Talked to him for a few minutes about the firearms industry in general and Ruger in particular. He seemed pretty down to earth.

The GP was either trolling or misinformed. The stereotype of the big scary "gun industry" is just that. Most of the American gun companies aren

And before you ask..... I've owned and used firearms since I was about 8, still do. The difference is here you don't mention them in polite society.

Americans believe that an armed populace is a necessary check on a tyrannical government or foreign conquest. It goes right along with the reason that our soldiers swear to uphold the constitution, and not our rulers or the ruler's laws.

I'll go so far as to claim that if your country cannot trust its citizenry with effective weapons of rebellion, then you are not a civilized country. (Not that presence of weapons is by any means proof of civilization... but their absence is an indicator of civilization's

Bullshit. The best one man can do to "rebel" is to assassinate an elected leader. Thus derailing the whole democratic process. If you could convince a group of men to resist they become terrorists. If you could convince a whole county or state to resist THEN you might have a legitimate contention, but the fact of the matter is the idea of armed rebellion is quaint and irrelevant today.

But all that aside, do you REALLY believe violence is an appropriate response to the banning of a video game? And what about when you realize the banning is largely symbolic because the game can easily be ordered online? Put down your guns and gain some perspective you psycho!

What if the democratic process has already been derailed? Just because someone was "elected" doesn't mean that democracy matters for spit. As a random example, in the United States, our politicians get to pick their voters [wikipedia.org]. How is that compatible with Democracy?

If you could convince a group of men to resist they become terrorists

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

but the fact of the matter is the idea of armed rebellion is quaint and irrelevant today

Why?

But all that aside, do you REALLY believe violence is an appropriate response to the banning of a video game?

No, but it is an appropriate response when the ends of government have been perverted and all other means of redress are ineffectual.

Our democratic process may have been derailed in many ways but the fact is the vast majority of Aussies don't want people wandering around with semi-autos and handguns. The NRA did come over here and try to derail that wish after the Tasmaninan massacre. We saw through their insensitive sales pitch and they were visably shaken when angry (unarmed) mobs turned up at their rallies and sent them packing back to the US. Like you they were mystified a

He's not fearful because most of them don't have guns.It's the criminals and wackos people worry about, and sometimes it's quite subjective who they are - your neighbour could see you as a wacko, and thus buy a gun, you see him as a wacko buying a gun, so you buy more guns. It just degenerates into an arms race.

You make guns easily available, more criminals will have them. In my country there are criminals with guns, but most of them don't have them, they make do with machetes etc. That's bad enough for me,

The explaination is simple. We aren't that fearfull of our fellow countrymen, our prime minister can go for a jog in the morning without a bullet proof vest and a small army, most of us would like it to stay that way.

It's already derailed, at least in the United States. The general public tend to choose among the top two to four candidates that have been on national TV. The TV news networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC) control which candidates can be on national TV, and they're all MPAA members. Of course they won't give screen time to any candidate that won't toe the copyright industry's party line.

And what about when you realize the banning is largely symbolic because the game can easily be ordered online?

The truly sad thing is that all of the attorney generals of each state of australia agreed in principle to having an r rating on video games (R being 18+ in Au, much like other nations), and there was a sole dissenting voice (Michael Atkinson of my home state South Australia - truly shameful).

One man has held up the classification of R18+ games in this country. If the people of SA vote out the rann govt, a classification is more likely. I would never say certain, as the alternative party are rather conserva

"How do you refuse when they are backed with the full force of law?"
You do something illegal. Very simple. Armed rebellion IS a legitimate choice.

While I may want the government to respect my choices when it comes to games I play or movies that I watch (or the type of sexual activity that I have), I am not willing to kill another human to achieve that goal.

This is a political question that's long been discussed in India. Civil disobedience led to the formation of the country and has been used repeatedly in the past to unseat unfavorable governments at the State level. There are two schools of thought, one that believes that civil disobedience is always an acceptable response and another that believes the constant reliance on civil disobedience will lead to a tyranny of the minority as long as enough of the minority becomes vocal or active enough. This second

The internet is a wonderful distribution. Not only could you distribute the game via digital download, but it doesn't matter who doesn't want you to have it at that point. As long as they take a paypal payment.

Exactly. The lack of a rating just means Australian retailers can't legally sell the game. Doesn't mean you can't play if it you order it from ebay or an overseas website. Which is exactly what everyone does.

What are people supposed to do? No politician is going to get elected on the platform of allowing an R18+ category or doing away with censorship. Australian isn't the US, we have a different culture and people in general are quite happy for the government to "protect" us from certain things. There isn't much support for the lack of R18+ category in gaming (or refusing classification for merely having factual information about drugs in a game) but the pollies can stir up enough talk back radio rants to stop

Australian isn't the US, we have a different culture and people in general are quite happy for the government to "protect" us from certain things.

Unfortunately that attitude isn't unique to your country and there are plenty of people here in the states that would willingly surrender their freedom and liberty in exchange for "protection" from various things.

there are plenty of people here in the states that would willingly surrender their freedom and liberty in exchange for "protection" from various things.

However, this "willingness to give up freedoms for safety" only shows itself statistically when talking about terrorism. Harris Interactive did a poll a few days after 9/11 asking the question and by 80%, Americans were willing to lose some freedoms. A second poll in 2007, halfway through the second GWBush administration, showed similar results.

It's interesting that of all the dangers in the world, the one that turns Americans into quivering masses of fear is something that is so statistically insignificant as to be nearly nonexistent. We hear conservative members of congress, big tough guys who like to swagger and threaten, worry about the 200 Gitmo detainees as if they were James Bond supervillians who could destroy American with their minds. Khalid what's-his-name, the supposed "9/11 mastermind" is actually so dangerous, they say, that he can't even be allowed to be tried in a court of law. Now that's fear.

Seriously, if you listen randomly to a segment of any US "conservative" media, one of the most common expressions you'll hear is "I'm afraid..." or "I fear...".

Khalid what's-his-name, the supposed "9/11 mastermind" is actually so dangerous, they say, that he can't even be allowed to be tried in a court of law.

I don't think it matters how dangerous he is. Enemy combatants whose only connection to our country is the desire to destroy it are not entitled to access to our civilian justice system. It's patently absurd in my mind to treat these people as common criminals. They are war criminals and deserve to be treated accordingly.

They aren't acting on behalf of a sovereign state, so they can't be war criminals. They're common criminals. It doesn't matter how heinous their crime is, everyone deserves access to the civilian justice system. Someone who murders his wife deserves access to the civilian justice system, someone who murders 20 college students deserves access to the civilian justice system, and someone who assists in the murder of 3000 people deserves access to the civilian justice system. It's called rule of law, you can't circumvent it just because you fell like it.

That's because we are a civilized nation - we don't believe we are the only people in the world who deserve these rights, we believe everyboy does. That's why we tend to get sucked into fights to preserve democracy and such, though our track record lately is only so-so.

So yeah it sucks that he gets to enjoy our freedoms, but it's the right thing to do.

We may believe everybody deserves these rights, but we don't normally go around trying to enforce our rights onto every country. Our track record lately, as in the past 10 years, is actually still pretty good.

Look back at our nation's history. We have not been in the habit of "spreading democracy" throughout the world. What we have been in the habit of doing is pushing communism back and containing it, which we sometimes failed miserably at doing. We've also been in the habit of pressuring communist cou

I don't think it matters how dangerous he is. Enemy combatants whose only connection to our country is the desire to destroy it are not entitled to access to our civilian justice system. It's patently absurd in my mind to treat these people as common criminals.

Indeed. Why, if declaring someone "enemy combatant" wouldn't put them outside the normal legal system, and able to be hold prisoner for as long as his captors desired, then how would the powerful get rid of their enemies? Why, the very thought that "everyone is equal before law" might lead someo to question the divine right of the king and the status of the aristocracy!

Kudos for Khalid, thought; he might be a freedom-hating murdering bastard, but not many people can have freedom die a little bit just by having their name mentioned on an Internet forum.

They are war criminals and deserve to be treated accordingly.

Very well, then bring them before a court. You did know that war criminals get sentenced or released on those, didn't you?

In fairness, the cynical side of me wonders about the calculus of re-tooling the game for an Australian release and the likely profits from doing so; it's just lucky they can present it as standing up to the guv'ment.

Exactly. Even if retooling a bit to make it past the censors would (after accounting for the cost of having an extra version to support if there are problems that need patching and such) increase the profit a bit, the difference is probably much smaller than that gained from free advertising garnered from "standing up to the censors". Also "banned in X countries!" will increase sales to certain demographics, and coincidentally some of these are demographics that an AvP game is likely targeted at.

Not only that, but there are very few game/book/film bans that have stayed in place forever. The AU will change their mind eventually, at some point in the future; and when they do, the "been banned for x years" tag will ensure it gets a boost in sales.

Just look at the huge commercial success of, for example, the thoroughly mediocre Lady Chatterley's Lover.

Refusal to put up with bullshit like Australia and Germany's ratings boards is the only way to bring them down. Tolerance for censorship only breeds familiarity and further tolerance.

Unfortunately the publishers boycotting nations will do nothing. It's the citizens that need to act. That being said, I agree with the publishers stance.

In case you don't know, the R18+ rating for video games in Australia is being held up by 1 man, South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson. There are already several campaigns underway to remove Mr Atkinson from his seat of Croydon. Video games are the only media in Australia that do not use the R18+ rating so the highest rating a game can get is M15 which is why L4D and AVP were rejected (extreme graphic violence), if they had of been books or movies they would have got the R18 rating and been released under our classification guidelines, because there is M15 is the highest rating our classification board can give to a video game they have no choice but to follow their mandate and give an RC rating to the game. It's the law that must be changed, that means changing Atkinson.

Our Parallel import laws are another thing, this way we can get around these stupid RC classifications as we can order games from the US, UK or Asia (Hong Kong being quite popular) so for PC gamers this isn't so much of an issue, for console gamers you still have to contend with the region locks.

It sure as hell will have an impact when the government realizes that they've lost all their tax revenue from video games because 80% of them aren't being sold there any more.

Not big enough to get noticed. Parallel importing was permitted as the tax revenue on movies, music and games sales wasn't worth protecting, it's just not big enough as most of our taxes are on energy (fuels), alcohol, tobacco and primary exports. This is why I can import games, movies and electronics for half the price of buying the

Well said. As a possible alternative to encouraging Mr Atkinson to move on, the Queensland Government is considering allowing "refused classification" games to be considered as R18+ within that state. There is a e-petition available here: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_qld/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=1346&lIndex=-1

The associated wordage is:

Queensland residents draws to the attention of the House that the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1995 is currently out of step wit

Let me start off by saying I don't know jack about how your system works but it sounds like the problem is with your system.

Not really, the system requires a unanimous vote because each Attorney General represents one of Australia's states. Requiring a unanimous vote prevents 4 out of the 7 deciding things for everyone, it also assures that extremist ratings cannot be entered in as easily nor can existing ratings be removed at the drop of a hat. It may only take one AG to stop R18 for games being introduc

"We will not be releasing a sanitized or cut down version for territories where adults are not considered by their governments to be able to make their own entertainment choices."

That is the proper response. Good Job, Rebellion. I hope other developers follow your lead. I have a hunch there will be a lot of piracy of the game in Australia... but I guess it really won't be hurting their sales, will it? I wonder if they'll allow online play from Australia?

That is the proper response. Good Job, Rebellion. I hope other developers follow your lead. I have a hunch there will be a lot of piracy of the game in Australia... but I guess it really won't be hurting their sales, will it? I wonder if they'll allow online play from Australia?

For those not inclined towards swashbuckling there is parallel importing from Asia. This co-incidentally is often cheaper then buying games locally and I'm including A$20 shipping from HK.

Quotes"I think you will find this issue has little traction with my constituents who are more concerned with real life issues than home entertainment in imaginary worlds""I am concerned about the impact of this extreme content on children""It is true this restricts liberty, however I am prepared to accept this infringement"

It's basically a long winded version of "will someone please think of the children!"

Due to his geographical location [emphasis mine], there's bugger all the majority of Australia can do about it from a voting perspective.

I don't blame game publishers for not releasing stuff here. Effectively we're all just waiting for 'Nanny' Atkinson to become senile and finally leave his post as South Australia's attorney general.

The thing that really worries me is how come they have this veto power for things like this in the first place....

I really don't understand why we've hung on to this ridiculously outdated notion of political power being assigned hierarchically by physical location. I have little in common with my neighbors, let alone people a mere suburb away, but I have the same political interests as other people in my field of employment literally thousands of kilometers away in Perth.

Take a look at the insane degree to which Americans have taken Gerrymandering [wikipedia.org] - formerly simple voting territories have been made almost fractal in ou

Government - at least in my view - has only a few legitimate roles. An important one is building and maintaining local infrastructure that is too expensive (or too divisive) for individual or corporate undertakings. If you don't have local voting control, then how will you see to it that your taxes are spent for the benefit of the region? People on the other side of the

There are some things that are necessarily locale based. I live in Michigan, USA, and (while I disagree with the mess that is the current political situation here) the fact is that there is a region that has a lot of things in common and needs a government that focused on the region and it's issues. Further, there tends to be a concentration of political ideals in certain areas, and local and regional power allow people to have at least some aspect of their government represent their views.

If a ratings board bans their game, even if it's a derivative piece of movie-spawned crap, it's pure gold for marketing. There's no way that the Australian government is going to block kids from getting the game...they will find a way one way or the other. But they're definitely doing yeoman's work in promoting the game everywhere by giving it a big "bad" rating. All the ratings system does is provide a free benchmark for a particular genre to strive for because they know that's what will turn heads and sell their product.

I know that if I were representing the company for this product, I'd be scheduling a big party to celebrate the rating and ban, not trying to make a political/free speech point out of it. The ratings system is an amazing helping hand to this particular venue.

I'm sure this will get played up eventually. Remember when that crappy game Bully was pulled from certain shelves? Banning stuff seems to make it more desirable to complete dimwits.

Even stuff that has never been banned from anything ever, but has implications of being banned is somehow more desirable. Consider that Affliction MMA special "Banned" from a few years back. I was in college at the time, and it seemed every cement head obsessed with mixed martial arts was going on and on about wanting to buy n

When Australians decide to start acting like adults they can do something about their government.

Whatever do you mean?

Do you mean that this is something the Australian public wants? That nothing is being done?

Or perhaps you are one of those nuts that believes that if we are not violent nothing will be done. I'd like to remind you that all those guns did not stop an extremely invasive surveillance law being put into place by the previous US government.

Because you are an ignorant troll, you do not actually know what is happening. Right now the R18 rating is being held up by one man, the South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson. All the other state Attorney Generals voted yes on R18 for games. Australian law in this case requires a complete consensus, not a majority (this prevents the State AG's from removing or changing existing classifications as well). There are already campaigns to remove Michael Atkinson from his seat of Croydon in the 2010 elections such as the Gamers4Croydon organisation. [gamers4croydon.org]

Well said.There are 2 luddites causing major international damage to australia as a tech using country. And both need to go.

Out with Conroy, and out with Atkinson.

(If only it were legally possible to exploit the fact that bankruptcy forces a federal MP to quit, they are legally unable to hold a seat if bankrupt, then we could get rid of Conroy and be half way to fixing this mess)

Unfortunately, it's incredibly difficult to sack a public servant, especially one that high up.

I think that if KRudd wins the next election (quite likely given the disarray the coalition is in at the moment) he'll move Conroy to the backbench or give him a trivial position in the cabinet when Rudd does the next cabinet reshuffle (probably after the next election). Conroy has been an embarrassment for the Rudd government, not just the censorship but the mishandling of the NBN drawing flak from all sides a

This falls under, "ustralians decide to start acting like adults they can do something about their government."

Again how?

You've failed to explain how using the democratic process is the antithesis of being an adult. We are using the democratic process to remove a person who is not acting in the best interests of the general public.

You are now mixing kids with adults and this game is not made for kids, it's for adults so your argument goes out of the window right now. Besides, how are the games as you listed wrong? I had tons of fun playing DOOM and Mortal Kombat. Not kids games, but i did play them as a kid, so did you propably but that doesn't mean that every violent game should be banned.

I love violent games. That doesn't mean that i go postal and kill everyone for real. It's entertaining to have some alien go up on a human, sma

Any time people pull this shit, kindly point out to them that since 1993, violent crime in all civilized nations has been on the decline, except in places like Sweden and Switzerland where it has stayed roughly the same, because it was never very high to begin with. This encompasses the era of pretty much all mass market video games. (For reference, Super Nintendo came out in 1992) Australia is actually an exception to this. I'm not saying that's significant, just that it's weird given the story.

Yeah, because places like Canada and Norway, and most other countries where these games are also legally purchased are having those problems as well.

Oh. Wait.

I've heard of people making the mistake of assuming correlation to mean a possible causal link, but this doesn't even correlate in most countries that have no problem allowing these games. Your reasoning is the same as Homer wanting Lisa's tiger repelling rock.

The problems you describe have to do with much larger underlying problems than anything video

The extreme violence the US suffers is the result of NOT having the nanny-state. Except it has NOTHING to do with censorship on its own, but rather the "I want to do everything I want to do and nobody can stop me or expect anything from me" attitude. It is the attitude where the Simpsons are not seen as a parody but as a role model.

Since the 19th century we have moved slowly to a society where parents want things to be different from how things were for them. And I am NOT talking about improved living stan

Jack Thompson, you've moved to slashdot. Your so called "public safety measure" is really censorship.Normally I'd tell you to get the hell out of my country but, well, you already did. So, good job. I commend you. Most people who live in the US throw away their freedom and ruin it for the rest of us. You actually did the proper thing and moved to a country where you don't have that freedom in the first place.

Don't know why you got modded up so much, with this flamebait suggesting Australia isn't free. I could point to many areas where the US is substantially less 'free' than Australia (including censorship - the degree to which you censor/bleep nudity and profanity from movies and TV shows over there is kinda amusing).

Anyway, the poster you are replying to is a little misguided and certainly does not reflect majority Australian opinion. Most Australians DO want an R18 rating for games. We are generally far less

Every time I hear: "Oh, my Johnny was such a nice boy, until he played those violent games. They turned him into a violent rapist and killer!"

Of course, even good parenting can't help with some individuals. This is often seen in families where they are bringing up multiple children and one of them turns into a drug addict, alcoholic, various crime things - even though all the other kids turned out to be

People don't like to accept that fact that it is their own fault for how their kids grow up.

Libertarians like to think this "fact" is true, since it fits in neatly in their world view. Why have censorship, when we can blame everything on the parents? It's certainly better than admitting even the slightest positive effect of censorship in certain situations. It's also convenient to defend because, no matter how well a parent can parent, there will always be some way that, in hindsight, their parenting could

As an American who moved to Australia a few years ago and married into citizenship, I actually support Australia's strong stance against violent video games and a violent society. The contrast is especially strong when you return to the states for a month or two.

And yet the rest of the world has these 'violent video games' and the contrast varies greatly from country to country. Hell, just try to tell me that these violent video games are making people in Switzerland more violent than those in Australia. Se

And if you think it makes any difference to an otherwise-normal teenager or adult if they play violent games, or view porn, or not, you're sadly mistaken. A survey by a UK university recently wanted to analyse the difference between people who did view violent / pornographic material and those who did not. They could not find a single suitable person to analyse, who'd never been exposed to either. This is pretty much the same throughout human history once a person hits a certain age.

I'm not the GP obviously but I'm a dual US-Australian citizen and have lived in both countries extensively so I feel I can answer this.

The key difference between the US and Australia when it comes to censorship is not really the severity of censorship, but rather what it is targeted at. Australia frowns more upon depictions of violence, the US more against nudity, sex, and profanity

Violence on TV news in Australia is therefore glossed over much like it is in the US. The exception to this is the SBS news (SB

Mod parent up. The GP does not reflect majority Australian opinion on this. Once the one guy that is holding this up is voted out/retires, we'll get our R18 rating for games. But as with all things in Government, it takes time.

In the meantime, buy it from Ebay and enjoy the game. It's not 'banned' from being owned by people in Australia, it's merely not able to be sold on shelves... that's all.